Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Let me use an analogy here. Last month my husband developed acute pancreatitis from gallstones. He was in the hospital ten days. During that time, I really didn’t worry much about anything else, especially the trivial stuff that takes up so much of my mind because I was consumed with worry Steve was going to die. (Not an uncommon result with pancreatitis in diabetics.) If I ever have that choice again, I’ll take the trivia. Same with this. If the only way to avoid squabbling is the murder of another 3,000 people, I’ll take squabbling, thank you.

It is not Bush and it is not Hillary and it is not Daily Kos or Bill O’Reilly or Giuliani or Barack. It is global terrorists who use Islam to justify their hideous sins, including blowing up women and children.

Not only do I prefer squabbling to murder, I’d say that squabbling is actually the best possible response to mass murder. We tried unity last time, and we wound up marching lock-step behind a psychopath who led us into an insane war and shredded the Bill of Rights, the rule of law, and every standard of decency.

If squabbling after a terrorist attack keeps us from repeating that mistake, then bring on the squabbling.

You know, I’m trying to keep quiet about this, but I can’t any longer. I feel the need to speak to this, as the mayor of New York on 9/11, as someone who stood on the rubble, and went to all the funerals for the firemen and police officers who died that day. I can’t contain the urgent desire that I have to voice my opinion when someone writes an article like this:

El Unitary Executivo has taken every liberty he can get his fingers on to protect “us” from “them”. And this guy is saying that a massive failure to protect us is supposed to shore up support for the same idiot who couldn’t do it, even with my liberties tied behind his back?

And, sadly, that is likely the exact effect it would have. Some BS poll would report that most Americans agree that, problem was, we didn’t give up enough liberties.

Greg: A terrorist attack would harm Ron Paul’s campaign and anyone else trying to defend our civil liberties. It would surely cement Giuliani’s position as frontrunner for the Republican nomination and probably guarantee him the presidency as well.

Those sorts of events make debate almost totally impossible. The Rove/Neoconservative political machine has perfected their message to such an extent that it obviates the possibility for any sort of debate. For a dramatized example, Tom Cruise’s line from the upcoming Lions for Lambs movie is instructive: “How and why isn’t an issue now…We have to move forward…Do you want to win the War on Terror? Yes or no. This is the quintessential yes or no question of our time. YES OR NO.”

It’s that kind of talk that people like O’Reilly spew every night on the teevee to 2 million plus viewers.

“It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America’s righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail.

The unity brought by such an attack sadly won’t last forever.” ==== So…he believes it will restore our righteous rage but, sadly, it won’t last forever. Which, I must assume, means he would then call for a third 9/11, and then a fourth, ad nauseum. That…that’s just sick.

I think this is a perfectly rational position for Bush supporters to take. It certainly explains why they do nothing to stop terrorism. They sat there and let it happen once, and look where it got them. They can just wait for the next one, declare martial law, and sell Florida to Saudi Arabia.

I think now would be a good time to suggest that we have an intelligence agency that doesn’t create and fund violent drug gangs to control other countries.

Here is yet another one of those ‘black or white’ mentality folks who can’t see that had we gone to balls to the wall in afghanistan against bin laden instead of venturing into iraq on a whim and a promise of WMD’s, that the american public would likely still have resolve to be ‘at war’.

The administration can’t on one hand use terrorism and iraq as a cure-all explanation for every shady, semi shady or really shady thing that goes on and then on the other hand wonder why people are getting sick of us being there at all.

A bunch of kids getting molested would probably call attention to the dangers posed by child molesters. Anti-Molesters for Molestation! Whose name can I put on the 501c3 papers? Cause I ain’t using mine.

Maybe I should cross-post this on the naked priest thread to make sure all relevant parties are notified.

Well, on the first 9/11, most people thought Bush was simply a relatively harmless fool who might’ve gotten lucky with the vote mishaps in FL in 2000. So, when he came across as a forceful leader with a vision for how the world could become a better place because of our reaction to 9/11, people bought in and united behind him for a time.

I’d be really, really surprised if even another 9/11 attack could restore that unity. Bush has given far too many people reason to hate him at this point. As for Giuliani, well, I could see him losing a bit of prestige as someone else will have a shot at being the Hero of XX/XX (insert date here) when his or her city/county/state is attacked.

I think America after 9/11 was kind of like someone in the grip of road rage who gets sideswiped in traffic, goes into a righteous rage, and the next thing they know they’re standing over someone’s corpse with a tire iron in their hand, wondering how they hell they’re going to get out of this situation.

Similarly, three years after 9/11 the American public calmed down a bit, looked around – and found its troops acting as policemen in Baghdad in the midst of all kinds of craziness with no easy way out.

If, God forbid, another large-scale terrorist attack occurs on American soil I’m afraid that when America eventually comes to its senses its going to find its troops patrolling the bombed-out streets of Tehran.

I think he’s right. I’d love to see my family perish if it could just solidify the national resolve. I’m throwing my mom in first. Sorry, ma, but put on some Bactine and Icy Hot before you’re set on fire. That will lessen the pain when you’re torching up like a sack of dogshit. Good job, Philly Enquirer. I hope that assfucker’s paycheck bounces.

“So, right after September 11, we were united in bold action – actions that, six years later, many of us are convinced were incredibly stupid.”

I presume you are talking about the US actions in Afghanistan, and by “many of us” you mean… a handful. The actions against the Taliban, and Al Qaida were exactly the right thing to do, and not at all stupid. Many of us believe that.

I’d be really, really surprised if even another 9/11 attack could restore that unity. Bush has given far too many people reason to hate him at this point. As for Giuliani, well, I could see him losing a bit of prestige as someone else will have a shot at being the Hero of XX/XX (insert date here) when his or her city/county/state is attacked. Katrina

Seems more likely he’s talking about PATRIOT, the surveillance state, unitary executive, etc. I can’t speak for him but I don’t think you’re justified in assuming he means the relatively popular (at least in theory, if not execution) Afghan campaign.

The need for perpetual war against a changing, faceless enemy is a necessary precursor for all totalitarian regimes. Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” addresses the same point–when all of our incentives are temporarily aligned, central planning “works.” Once they fall back out of alignment, central planning cannot cope with the variability, and so conflicting incentives arise that cause some to actually desire more war.

We just certain political leaders to stop using the issue of terrorism as a partisan wedge issue.

The diappearance of the unity in this country in the weeks after 9/11 didn’t happen naturally, or on its own. It was deliberately destroyed by professional politicians and political consultants who determined that ripping the country in half politically would give their party a slightly bigger half.

It would be a mistake to lump together all political dispute under the heading “squabbling.”

I recall the debate over whether DHS employees (like, say, FEMA managers) should be at-will employees of the President was decided by saying that people who didn’t want them to be poltical hacks “cared more about unions than about the security of the American people.”

I can recall the debate over whether the USA PATRIOT Act went too far being ended by a declaration that “those who conjure phantoms of lost liberty are GIVING AID AND COMFORT TO OUR ENEMIES.” The Constitutional definition of treason, a few weeks after the planes hit the towers.

Principled political debate over the merits of issues, even if heated, is not remotely the same thing as using accusations that your political opponents are in leage with mass murdering terrorists in order to push through your political agenda.

great national unity(flag makers doing fine thanks) strong economy (military base next door) higher church attendance (stronger economy for God) increased awareness of border security issues(maybe even some action) lotsa new jobs making military stuff

etc.

simple cost/benefit . the man has a point and in these apathetic times we can all use a little pick me up to feed our sense of victimhood. If brother Falwell says it’s God’s will, then we must accept our punishment secure in the knowledge that these trying times are not in vain.

Absurdly offensive or offensively absurd? Take your pick. No, we don’t need another 9/11. It’s ironic how fervant anti-terrorist beliefs lead to a terrorist mindset. “We need thousands of innocent people killed so that…” aside from the blank, it’s equivalent to the jihadists.

The problems America faces are not so trivial that a disaster or two will snap people into the right kind of thinking. Would that it were so simple. The problems are much more fundamental than that. It isn’t just our foreign policy, or our politics or the “culture wars” and reality television. All of those are symptoms.

These people are very sick puppies, and it shows just how desperate Republicans have become. Before the 2004 election, I predicted that a Bush re-election would be devastating for the Republican party. Some laughed at me then, but who’s laughing now? (Well, actually I’m laughing at the folly of humankind.)

togetherness is way fucking overrated. just ask the iraqis (oh bad analogy sorry).

“It would be a mistake to lump together all political dispute under the heading “squabbling.””

well you would say that; you’re part of the squabblers. (no offense and i love you joe and all that, but you are team blue and that’s your thing. we see it different here in flavor country. nothing much you can do about that.)

The underlying premise here is the same one that Bin Ladin inc uses regularly. 9/11 (and all the other attacks on the US) are designed to get a reaction out of the US…designed to goad the US into taking military action in the Middle East, so that AQ can unify opposition to the US in the region based on the violence.

9/11 worked well for them…primarily because it facilitated the Iraq invasion and turned the US into an occupying force. An ongoing 9/11 among their base. Great recruiting tool.

So maybe this asshat thinks we need AQ to occupy Philadelphia…that would provide us with an ongoing tragedy to unify around.

Who knows? If it works, then maybe we could get some illegal immigrants to stage an attack…then we could get everyone to unite behind the idea of rounding them all up and putting them to work in the fields.

The tribe, when threatened, gathers around behind it’s strongest alpha male…he’ll know what to do.

There’s the difference between man and lesser animals. The lower creatures don’t have politicians to take advantage of the threat-reaction instinct for the purpose of crowd control.

Americans loved the 1991 Gulf War. It raged for just 100 hours when George H.W. Bush ended it with a declaration of victory. He sent a half-million troops into harm’s way and we suffered fewer than 300 deaths.

…

Bush I did everything right, Bush II did everything wrong – but he did it with the backing of Congress.

We won’t mention that Gulf War 1990 was an achievable military goal. Take all the military you’ve got and force the Iraqi troops back over the Kuwait/Iraq border and decimate (more like obliterate) their military force to prevent another invasion. Mission accomplished.

The Gulf Nation Political and Structural Realignment Action of 2003 was a bit more, umm, foggy in it’s design and execution.

For a start, the author overstates the immediate unity post-9/11. Even then, there was a big difference between the “righteous rage” crowd and those who wanted to wallow in bathetic weepy let’s-hold-hands-and-drone-“Imagine” candlelight vigils and retreat into antiquated tropes about “root causes” like global poverty (notwithstanding the middle-class backgrounds of Mohammed Atta and co). The second time round, there won’t even be a momentary veneer of unity. The angry left will be demanding by lunchtime “What did Bush know and when did he know it?” and citing eminent scientists such as Professor Rosie O’Donnell to demonstrate that it couldn’t possibly have been anything but an inside job. The less angry left will demand not a punitive military response but a 12-month blue-ribbon commission co-chaired by Lee Hamilton to call witnesses and investigate where the Administration went wrong. Less motivated types will be convinced – like British public opinion after the Glasgow attack and the sailor kidnappings – that it’s blowback for Iraq. And a big chunk of the rest may even plump for the Spanish option post-Madrid: Oh, dear, we seem to have caught your eye. What would it take for that not to happen again?

Worse news: Even the road to liberty is paved in the blood of innocents. Human history is one long slog of people getting killed for ideology and power – even democracy had its Reign Of Terror.

The only good news in most of human history is the eye-blink’s worth of establishment and steady progress that democratic republics have made toward greater liberty for an ever-widening definition of “the people” – but even the brightest of those states has had its moments of slavery, attempted aboriginal genocide, racial internment camps, etc.

yes I was being sarcastic. no I didn’t die. and I forgot to mention the economic boon due to the huge increase in the sale of chinese made american flags.

and I am convinced that some politician somewhere believes in his/her heart that another attack would benefit their party. A lot of folks here in south Alabama are just weary of the whole Charlie Foxtrot that is “the war on terror”. no plan, no goal, seemingly no positive results. Is it apathy to throw up your hands and say “fuck it, I give up on politics in america.”?